F2F vs. Discussion with group collaboration...
This past week I was asked some interesting questions: "What is it about f2f collaboration that makes it good? What features should we try to reproduce online? What can online environments do that f2f ones can't?"
What characteristics make f2f good? This is a difficult quesiton. I think it stems back to the idea that body language, tone of voice, and eye contact seem to be concepts that are difficult to replicate in an online atmosphere. On the flip side of the argument online collaboration has its own “body language,” “tones,” and “voice.” For example, emoticons are one way to express a feeling. I believe that visual literacy is also very important. The types of images used in Palace are a great way for students to express who they are and what they are about, which in some ways takes the place of body language. Speaking of the Palace I also think the visual environment is something to consider. I felt more relaxed in the rooms in the Palace verses the typical white backgroud of most chatrooms. (I never thought about it before this time.) Making students visually feel comfortable in the online visual environment is something to consider when dealing with online classes.
I also believe the word collaboration is important because it is easy to either sychronously communicate one to one or asychronousely communicate with a group. It is much more difficult to communicate in a group in an online environment to make collaboration happen. It is difficult to know who is going to speak or who is really wanting to speak but is timid. From this group experience f2f was nice because we were able to organize our project then it was very esay to communicate online. Once a main goal for the group was established and then assignments (or personal goals) were set the communication online was much easier. I have personally found that online collaboration is difficult because the main goal(s) are either not formatted or there miscommunication or misunderstanding about the the definition of the goal(s).
Marian Maxfield
posted by Marian Maxfield | 7:59 AM
2 Comments:
I wonder if we overestimate the importance of some of the aspects of f2f communications such as expressions, body language, inflections, etc. Perhaps the key thing about f2f collaboration is simply the ease and speed of exchanging ideas. Think of a concept map. If I were to have an f2f group collaborate on one, I would give them a big sheet of paper and some fine-point markers. My guess is that there would be very quick drawing, discussions, etc. My guess is that the same group online would be hampered by the tools. Delays in seeing what the others had done, overlapping comments, etc.
Waddaya think?
Chip
You asked about assessment of learning, especially from the constructivist point of view. Here's an article that looks useful. It is from 1997, so its references are all before that. I'll keep looking.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:g9xelSOLNqAJ:www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~paulus/Work/Vranded/litconsa.htm+jonassen+assessment
Post a Comment
<< Home